What I've Been Watching: The Catch-All Film Thread

November 29th, 2010, 14:26

Originally Posted by JDR13
That's why I said "was". I really liked him in Jumper, so I know he's improved greatly since Star Wars, but I don't think Lucas's writing had anything to do with how bad he was back then.

I think the fact that the prequels are basically 95% green-screen is the largest factor in these incredibly bad performances. I know Hayden is an easy target, as he has the most "dramatic" performance and arguably the most interesting role and in effect disappointed people the most - but I really don't think he was any worse than Neeson, Portman, or the absolutely dreadful Jackson. All of them give some very awkward performances, if you ask me.

Ewan McGregor did "ok", but certainly nothing like his work in other films. Maybe he adjusted better to the environment, I don't know.

I REALLY think Lucas is a complete hack when it comes to writing and directing, but he's great at combining these mythological ideas that he's stealing left and right - and he's obviously passionate about the visual side too. Someone should just have tapped his shoulder and told him the truth - and he could have gotten a decent director like he did with 5 and 6.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I think the fact that the prequels are basically 95% green-screen is the largest factor in these incredibly bad performances. I know Hayden is an easy target, as he has the most "dramatic" performance and arguably the most interesting role - but I really don't think he was any worse than Neeson, Portman, or the absolutely dreadful Jackson. All of them give some very awkward performances, if you ask me.

While it's easy to blame something like green-screen acting, the problem is that the acting hasn't been that bad in other movies. I tend to agree more with your theory regarding Lucas simply being a shitty director.

I had no problem with Neeson's performance, or Portman's. I think Jackson is highly overrated to begin with.

Originally Posted by JDR13
While it's easy to blame something like green-screen acting, the problem is that the acting hasn't been that bad in other movies.

Few movies are as green-screen laden as the prequels, though. Most movies with a lot of green-screen tend to provide the actors with small or simplistic sets, so they have something to relate to. But apparently Lucas doesn't think that's important, so according to various interviews and background material - almost everything you see in the prequels, beyond the actors, is entirely computer generated.

The actors have been open about this as a major challenge. But, definitely, Lucas being the director and writer must have been a major contribution as well.

I do agree that Hayden's performance was painfully bad at points - but when I consider the context of the scenes - he did have some extremely emotional things that he had to express - and none of the other actors really had to do that.

It just clashed MAJORLY that he had to do things like avenging his mother - killing a whole tribe of sandpeople, committing mass-scale genocide after a very brief "turnaround", slaughtering children openly, and being burned nearly to a crisp in full view of the audience - in a movie that's otherwise mostly PG slapstick or a horribly written teenage romance "fantasy" story. I don't think you can put those concepts together, but Lucas apparently thought so.

Neeson and Portman have more subtle roles, but if you look carefully - I think most people will find them far below their usual standards. They're just "going through it" with some interesting grimaces along the way

Oh, I agree about Jackson. Never saw the appeal, and having him go: "This party's over" is all I need to understand how seriously I'm supposed to take the films.

But whatever, it's not like the movies are any good to begin with.

The entire prequel trilogy constitutes one of the saddest and most wasted efforts of the movie industry - but what's past is past

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Few movies are as green-screen laden as the prequels, though. Most movies with a lot of green-screen tend to provide the actors with small or simplistic sets, so they have something to relate to. But apparently Lucas doesn't think that's important, so according to various interviews and background material - almost everything you see in the prequels, beyond the actors, is entirely computer generated.

The actors have been open about this as a major challenge. But, definitely, Lucas being the director and writer must have been a major contribution as well.

Sure it was a challenge, but not any more so than to other actors in other movies.
As far as the large % of it being that way, you would think that it would give them the advantage of being used to it, at least by the third movie.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
The entire prequel trilogy constitutes one of the saddest and most wasted efforts of the movie industry - but what's past is past

HP7
Took the Wild Dogs to this one. Have enjoyed the series, so I had high hopes for this edition. Have to admit I was disappointed. Even knowing that this one was primarily a "setup" of stuff that will resolve in the final movie next summer, there just didn't seem to be much going on in this movie. Lots of running around in the woods that just didn't convey much- no tension to speak of, no overwhelming sense of "alone-ness", no deep thoughts, very little plot advancement.

And the brief makeout scene was just creepy. Sure, the characters are getting older now, but we kinda made a big jump from holding hands and awkward kisses to naked makeout. I've got no problem with gratuitous nudity (or, in this case strongly implied nudity in dream setting), but it just seemed tremendously out of place in this film. Very jarring.

Seemed like there were quite a few plot holes as well, but I'm willing to wait until the final film gets a chance to resolve them before complaining too much.

— Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Let's Get to Work / / Detroit Red Wings: Welcome, Coach Blash!

Gamer : bad , very bad , i usually like action movies but this was ridiculous , also you couldn't level your character . We fat boys never role play as skinny girls , enough with this stupid clichι.

You will meet a tall stranger (or something): not my choice but it wasn't terrible , i really enjoyed Anthony Hopkins 's acting and characters did make sense ; on the plus side fantastic easy to understand accents .

Skyline : tough to talk about this , first of all the characters suck and they are very shallow , i hardly felt any sympathy for them . Alien ships reminded me of The Matrix ( yeah with "the shadows" like heads from Babylon 5) but it must be the best invasion movie i have seen + super graffix , cgi or what you call them.
Very strong points : minimum of screaming women and NO STUPID KIDS!!!!
A must watch .

I sat watching it, thinking it was probably the worst movie I've ever seen - and the ending nailed it - beyond any doubt

I saw HP7 - and I was slightly disappointed. It's not that I expected that much, but found it too slow and there were some "unfortunate" scenes like a certain dancing scene. That said, it was ok and for some reason, I really enjoyed the music.

I'm also quite fond of the atmosphere that Yates manages to inject, or maybe it's the cinematographer - but it certainly works for me. I haven't read the books, though, so I can't speak to how close it feels to them. I've never thought much of the plot and I think a lot of it is very, shall we say, arbitrary. I don't know if that's just the way the movies are dealing with the material - but I suspect it's just that Rowling isn't a particularly good writer. I'm not getting the "serious material" vibe from plot intricacies that the movies seem to try to get across. It's like a story for children that probably should have stayed that way, but suddenly became too adult. I think Rowling bit over more than she could chew - but until I read the books (like that will ever happen) I can't be sure. I can't really explain it, but way too many things happen in way too convenient ways - without any kind of plausible or believable underpinning to support all the "just in the nick of time" stuff. For instance, I don't understand the rules of the "teleport" power. It's like they teleport away every single time they're in trouble - so I'm not seeing the threat much

The trailer for Transformers 3 looks pretty cool. I'm just hoping it will be like the first one, and not the second one which was pure trash. Meaning: just stick to the awesome CG and leave out jokes and bullshit like that.

—  Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius  and a lot of courage  to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)

I see people trash movies like Skyline and Transformers and I have to ask. What in the hell were you expecting to see in these films? Films like these have been, are, and always will be, about one thing. Special effects. That's it. And along those lines they did very well. You are not going to get a great plot, terrific acting or whathave you. You are going to get special effects. Anyone expecting more is going to be sorely disappointed.

And this wasn't directed specifically at you DArtagnan, although it was your post that brought this up for me.

The Tourist
Not going to win any awards, but a surprisingly fun "caper film". Went in with minimal expectations, which probably helped. Jolie was pretty textbook—barely adequate acting liberally sprinkled with trademark sexy facial expressions. Depp does an excellent job in the beginning, but kinda fades as the film goes on. He definitely plays a quirky twit far better than a traditional action hero. Still, the sum is greater than the parts and it was a decent 2 hours spent.

— Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Let's Get to Work / / Detroit Red Wings: Welcome, Coach Blash!

Death at a Funeral
Not the original movie from 2007, but the American remake from earlier this year. I have to admit I wasn't expecting much, and I was pleasantly surprised. I found myself actually laughing out loud quite a few times, and I rarely do that during movies. It might be the best comedy from 2010.

The Adventures of Hercules
Wow. Just wow. Wonderful hand-painted special effects. A boss battle fought by hand-drawn, neon colored gorillas and snakes in outer space…
Too bad I haven't seen this back in '85 when it hit theaters - I bet you got some LSD along with the ticket .

Originally Posted by Icefire
I see people trash movies like Skyline and Transformers and I have to ask. What in the hell were you expecting to see in these films? Films like these have been, are, and always will be, about one thing. Special effects. That's it. And along those lines they did very well. You are not going to get a great plot, terrific acting or whathave you. You are going to get special effects. Anyone expecting more is going to be sorely disappointed.

And this wasn't directed specifically at you DArtagnan, although it was your post that brought this up for me.

CGI is itself a reason to see a movie , now for sci-fi fans Skyline is a must , like medieval era lovers will go and watch movies where the chain mail is drown with a marker on a white t-shirt.
Your comment is 100% out of bounds , like saying that someone goes to see "sweet movie" for the guy pissing on the dinner table.

Originally Posted by Icefire
I see people trash movies like Skyline and Transformers and I have to ask. What in the hell were you expecting to see in these films? Films like these have been, are, and always will be, about one thing. Special effects. That's it. And along those lines they did very well. You are not going to get a great plot, terrific acting or whathave you. You are going to get special effects. Anyone expecting more is going to be sorely disappointed.

And this wasn't directed specifically at you DArtagnan, although it was your post that brought this up for me.

I'm not talking about expectations, I'm talking about the quality of the film as a whole. Special effects don't interest me in the least by themselves - but when they serve the story, they're nice when done well. Maybe that's why I think Avatar is crap - seeing as everything but the visuals was awful?

A movie doesn't get any better because I expect something specific from it, it is what it is regardless. Maybe the experience can be altered, but the actual movie is a static piece of work that doesn't change.

Skyline was a piece of shit - and expecting it to be won't change anything for me.

That said, I didn't expect anything. I just sat down and experienced it with an open mind - like I do with movies in most cases. Sometimes I get affected by hype, but it's rare - because I don't really follow them before release. I'd heard absolutely nothing about Skyline - except that it was a science fiction film.

It was abysmal.

Just my opinion, though.

If you think a movie is good when the special effects are done well, then I'm sure Skyline was worth it. It seems many people share your tastes, seeing as how movies like Avatar and Tron Legacy are doing so well. Stories and characters are completely ignored - but maybe I'm old-fashioned to care so much about them.

Personally, I think people are easy to please and enjoy the spectacle for its own sake - and especially the pleasure of turning off their brains. That's fine.

Originally Posted by Tragos
CGI is itself a reason to see a movie , now for sci-fi fans Skyline is a must , like medieval era lovers will go and watch movies where the chain mail is drown with a marker on a white t-shirt.
In my opinion, Your comment is 100% out of bounds , like saying that someone goes to see "sweet movie" for the guy pissing on the dinner table.

Really? How many people went to see Independence Day because they thought Will Smith turned in an Academy award winning performance? How many went to see War of the Worlds because Spielberg turned in the directorial job of a lifetime? I'm not saying Skyline was a great movie. The acting was awful and the story was used better in Diehard. The special effects were terrific though. And for a science fiction fan WHO CARES about special effects, it was worth seeing. Independence Day was worth seeing for the special effects. War of the Worlds was worth seeing for the special effects. I should have worded my post a little better. If you go to these films expecting mindless fun and some cool effects, you'll be fine IN MY OPINION. That's all. And for the record, I absolutely hated Avatar. I am a huge fan of monster movies (which is why I liked skyline), but I thought the visuals were terrible. Too cartoony IN MY OPINION.. I also added those three words to your post Tragos. Makes a real difference in how people will react to it.